Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

The question "Which came first?" assumes a single, uni-directional dimension of time. The arrow of time in our universe is, to my limited understanding tied to the Laws of Thermodynamics and entropy. But there is no guarantee that those laws are valid outside of our space/time. Also, there are theories that allow for more than one dimension of time.. So, while obviously speculative, an entity existing "outside" our space/time and embedded in a bi-directional time dimension would have no beginning or end. I'm not sure how all that relates to our universe. Maybe not at all.

The question "Which came first?" assumes a single, uni-directional dimension of time. The arrow of time in our universe is, to my limited understanding tied to the Laws of Thermodynamics and entropy. But there is no guarantee that those laws are valid outside of our space/time. Also, there are theories that allow for more than one dimension of time.. So, while obviously speculative, an entity existing "outside" our space/time and embedded in a bi-directional time dimension would have no beginning or end. I'm not sure how all that relates to our universe. Maybe not at all.

All we can really base any logical beliefs in is what we can observe and measure. We can only observe that time is running in one direction and that the universe is all there is. We observe that there is a certain amount of matter in the universe and that matter cannot be created or destroyed. We have no evidence otherwise.

All we can really base any logical beliefs in is what we can observe and measure. We can only observe that time is running in one direction and that the universe is all there is. We observe that there is a certain amount of matter in the universe and that matter cannot be created or destroyed. We have no evidence otherwise.

If I remember correctly, quantum fluctations of the vacuum result in a particle and anti-particle moving in opposite directions in time. So at least on a quantum level, the arrow of time is not absolute. And cosmologies that allow for multiple dimensions of time are logical extensions of observable physics. While it is all on the edges of understanding, it is not just woo-woo.

Exactly, but I never really cared much about it until I read an article somewhat recently that stated the expansion of the universe was slowing down. Nothing can ever escape the long arm of gravity. The momentum of the bang will eventually be overtaken by the natural attraction of all matter.

Exactly, but I never really cared much about it until I read an article somewhat recently that stated the expansion of the universe was slowing down. Nothing can ever escape the long arm of gravity. The momentum of the bang will eventually be overtaken by the natural attraction of all matter.

Exactly, but I never really cared much about it until I read an article somewhat recently that stated the expansion of the universe was slowing down. Nothing can ever escape the long arm of gravity. The momentum of the bang will eventually be overtaken by the natural attraction of all matter.

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

The current theory is that eveyrthing will end in the 'Big Freeze'.

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Also you are running into the same problem Watcher proposed.

Problem with gravity winning in the end? That is the only explaination for the slowing rate of the expansion of the universe. If the universe was empty with only two atoms placed a million light years from each other, the attraction would eventually bring them back together.

That means the Big Crunch theory is most likely true. Will it cycle into another expansion afterwards? It has to.. because we are in an expansion now and before the expansion there must have been a big crunch.

The Big Bang entails high energies and short distances. At such high energies/low distances Quantum Mechanics rules supreme. QM is by no means simple.

Why do you think they're having such a hard time unifying GR with QM?

Take a QM course and get back to me.

{edit}

As for your 'itch' analogy, the biological mechanisms that cause the itch are more complex than just saying 'It's itchy'

{/edit}

The biological implications about what caused the itch isn't the point of the analogy. *slaps hand to face*

How did I know you would sidestep the point by bringing that up?

It wasn't "what caused the itch" it was, "why did that earth creature decide (<- did you notice that word? DECIDE) to rub it's keratin composed residual claws that are on it's smallest appendages on it's upper limbs over its skin in that particular location in that particular manner?"

Ok, here I will make a stand.

One cell in the human body is MUCH MORE COMPLEX than the Big Bang.

Quantum Mechanics is behind it all if you want to go with it in that direction. QM is behind it all: the big bang, animal/plant cell, rock, etc. Big whoop and beside the point.

Problem with gravity winning in the end? That is the only explaination for the slowing rate of the expansion of the universe. If the universe was empty with only two atoms placed a million light years from each other, the attraction would eventually bring them back together.

That means the Big Crunch theory is most likely true. Will it cycle into another expansion afterwards? It has to.. because we are in an expansion now and before the expansion there must have been a big crunch.

F=G*M*m/r^2

Plug the mass of hydrogen atoms and a million light years and see what you get.

Or a better way to put it:

The universal density is less than the critical density, ergo it will continue to expand, it is being pushed by Dark energy.

The 'singularity', which is one idea of the starting state of the Universe, is the ultimately simple thing - by definition it has no structure.

Of course the theory we have built up to provide a framework to reflect the way matter and energy behave at the scale of fundamental particles, namely Quantum Theory, is complex. It provides a framework for hypotheses of how the raw energy of the primeval universe spawned an ever-growing sea of particles and flows of energy eventually leading to the distribution of galaxies we now observe.

The increase of information involved here matches the increasing entropy.

Current evidence is that the rate of expansion is increasing.

One speculation that appealed to me is, as far as I can remember at the moment, that collections of matter will ultimately continue to fragment, and that at some point something will trigger new 'Big Bang' expansion within each fragment. This has the side 'benefit' that the new Big Bang starts off with a tiny fraction of the entropy of the original Universe, thereby avoiding one set of objections to the BB based on the second Law of Thermodynamics.

The 'singularity', which is one idea of the starting state of the Universe, is the ultimately simple thing - by definition it has no structure.

I'm pretty sure that it was a state of max entropy ergo the reason that it's so 'simple' is that we can get no information from it.

But even then the symmetry breaking would be complex.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Current evidence is that the rate of expansion is increasing.

One speculation that appealed to me is, as far as I can remember at the moment, that collections of matter will ultimately continue to fragment, and that at some point something will trigger new 'Big Bang' expansion within each fragment. This has the side 'benefit' that the new Big Bang starts off with a tiny fraction of the entropy of the original Universe, thereby avoiding one set of objections to the BB based on the second Law of Thermodynamics.

Welcome to multiverse theory.

Watcher wrote:

Something less complex. Quarks and whatnot, I forget all the names and don't feel like doing a quick search on the matter, but it continually breaks down into more and more simple components.

Oh, and if you think that protons/anit-protons or electrons/positrons can spring into existance look up quantum flucuations.

I'm not arguing against the Big Bang or any other theory of physics, all I'm saying is that they are complex.

Qute apart from exactly what the true state was at time zero, the well established ideas of the 'evolution' of the Universe involves many examples of more complex arrangements of matter/energy 'condensing' out of more formless states.

The raw sea of energy condensed into sub-atomic particles as it expanded and cooled.

As the energy density dropped further, hydrogen atoms could form out of the sea of particles.

Further down the track, clouds of hydrogen gas began to form clumps under the influence of gravity, which condensed into the first stars, which started fusion reactions to form heavier elements, releasing energy which eventually caused them to explode and scatter the new elements into the interstellar gas clouds.

At a later stage, longer-lived stars formed and began to coalesce into galaxies. Stars continued to form within gas-clouds in tho galaxies, and in some cases at least, the left over matter around a newly formed star condensed into more solid cold objects such as asteroids, planets, comets, etc.

On at least one planet, as it cooled, some analogue of this pattern continued, to form some more complex collections of atoms and molecules, leading ultimately to life as we know it....

Not pretending my account here exactly describes just what happened or the best current research, but I make the point how desperately mistaken and naive are the ideas of even the more 'sophisticated' believers about natural processes, 'cause and effect', entropy, 'information', and the 'natural' explanations for how what we perceive as 'complexity' arises from less complex states of matter, in both living and non-living matter.

The 'singularity', which is one idea of the starting state of the Universe, is the ultimately simple thing - by definition it has no structure.

I'm pretty sure that it was a state of max entropy ergo the reason that it's so 'simple' is that we can get no information from it.

You mean minimum entropy, hence no information. Otherwise you can't go any further, since entropy can only increase.

Information was generated by the random quantum processes taking place as it expanded and cooled. I actually read this in an article in NewScientist magazine. It requires more information to define the state of a mass of particles than a tiny 'glob' of raw energy.

I repeat, a singularity has no structure, it has the absolute minimum possible 'information' content. The maximum information content of a volume of space is theorised to be proportional to the surface area enclosing it.

Original thermodynamic definition of entropy is related to the total quantity of thermal energy in a system divided by the absolute temperature. Since the primeval fireball universe would have been at some astronomical temperature, that corresponds to a very small entropy, increasing as the temperature falls, matching the increase in entropy. Complexity increased from virtually zero.

The further a system is from equilibrium, the greater is the increase in entropy associated with its energy flows, and the more those flows of energy can support spontaneously self-organising local systems, up to and including life. See the works of Ilya Prigogine.

Plug the mass of hydrogen atoms and a million light years and see what you get.

No matter the distance, there will always be a pull.. however, just to make you happy, I calculated it anyways. How troublesome.

Great, I have another calculation for you!

(critical density)=3H^2/8(pi)G

Critical of the universe is 8.9x10^-27kg/m^3

The current density is less than that, ergo the universe will NOT Big Crunch. It will slow, but not enough.

paulogic wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Or a better way to put it:

The universal density is less than the critical density, ergo it will continue to expand, it is being pushed by Dark energy.

It all comes down to whether dark energy exists. I personally do not think it does but that does not matter as it is just my opinion. Thanks for the discussion.

It's the best current theory.

BobSpence1 wrote:

I repeat, a singularity has no structure, it has the absolute minimum possible 'information' content. The maximum information content of a volume of space is theorised to be proportional to the surface area enclosing it.

The average particle energy was 10^20Gev, giving near perfect symemtry. However, yes as it cooled, the forces seperated...blah blah blah.

My point is if these mechanism were simple, then physicists would be out of the job. The laws that govern the particles etc..

My stance is that whatever was at the begining, God or no God, had to be complex.